Domestic partners mark registry’s first anniversary

Nearly 40 couples have taken advantage of city’s unique recognition program

Partners Jess Pierson, front, and Jen Humphrey are followed by a couple of kittens as they walk around their farm south of Lawrence. The couple signed up for the city's domestic partnership registry a year ago and moved to the farmhouse in May.

Jen Humphrey laughs as her partner, Jess Pierson, left, checks a tomato for ripeness on Saturday. The couple have been together for 15 years.

Opposite-sex couples also use registry

Religious issues largely have been credited or blamed - depending on your viewpoint - for the state's ban on same-sex marriages and the creation of Lawrence's domestic partnership registry.

But it also is religious issues that have caused some opposite-sex couples - individuals who have the legal right to marry - to sign up for the city's domestic partnership registry.

That's the case for Peter Picucci and Star Straf. The Lawrence residents signed up for the registry last year because Picucci is Catholic and Straf is not.

"To him, marriage is a full ceremony including a Mass, and I'm not Catholic," Straf said. "That is a sacrament in his religion, and I respect that."

Like most couples interviewed, the significance of the domestic partnership registry has been more symbolic than anything else.

"On a personal level it has been meaningful," Picucci said. "I don't know that it has been meaningful in any legal way."

But the recognition does come in handy in social settings.

"We now have an answer to the question of are you married," Picucci said. "Saying we're domestic partners carries a lot more weight than to say we've just been dating for 13 years."

It's a country romance between Jess and Jen.

Jess in Carhartt pants worn from days of chores and Douglas County soil. Jen in jeans and bare feet sitting cross-legged on a couch in front of the old farmhouse's curtainless window.

Over a glass of iced tea that sweats from a setting summer sun, they talk about how it began. They met at age 20 at KU. Lived in the "city," with Jen working her way up the bureaucratic ladder at the university, and Jess just working - oftentimes still putting in 50 hours a week.

Then, as is inevitable in these stories, the call of the country fills the air. Jess is a fourth-generation Lawrence resident, with family roots deep in Douglas County agriculture. The family farmhouse - the one Jess played in as a kid - was waiting for an occupant.

So, just two months ago, they left their home on Rhode Island Street and returned to the farm. Well, Jess returned and Jen followed.

Now they fight to keep coyotes away from the goat herd, procrastinate about canning tomatoes from their 110 plants, and have just plain surrendered their squash to the bugs this season.

For the couple of 15 years, it is a mature, but not mundane, relationship.

"I guess we're the stereotypical Kansans," Jen says with a laugh. "Returning to the farm in our mid-30s to pursue an agrarian life."

She says it with a laugh because that's not supposed to be the stereotype.

Jess Pierson - short for Jessica - and Jen Humphrey are lesbians. They are supposed to fulfill all sorts of stereotypes, but living a life suited for the cover of Midwest Magazine isn't one of them.

"Most people's impression of lesbians are formed from porn or their church," Jen said. "Sometimes both."

¢¢¢

It's been one year ago this month that Lawrence leaders took what many in the gay and lesbian community believed was the most significant step yet in Kansas to change impression.

Lawrence city commissioners created the state's first domestic partnership registry. Lawrence residents since Aug. 1 of last year have been able to register their unmarried relationships with the city clerk's office. They submit some basic biographical information, attest to being in a monogamous relationship, affirm that they share a roof and expenses, and, of course, pay the city a $75 fee. The city, in return, provides them with a pair of laminated cards saying they are a member of a domestic partnership.

"It's really kind of cheesy," Humphrey said of the card. "But I appreciate they acknowledge it. And it is a nice conversation piece."

It's also the closest that a Kansas homosexual couple will come to receiving legal recognition of their relationship. Kansas is one of many states that have a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

But saying a legally recognized domestic partnership is a lot like marriage would be a bit like saying that Clinton Lake is a lot like the Pacific Ocean. They both have water, but one offers considerably more latitude.

The city's domestic partnership doesn't convey any legal rights that come with marriage. Legal issues of property, insurance, inheritance and a host of other issues aren't changed simply by filling out the city form.

But a year ago, supporters of the registry argued that it could play a key role in providing health insurance to some members of unmarried relationships. Some companies will offer health benefits to a domestic partner of an employee - just as they will to a spouse. But some companies, advocates said, require legal proof that the individual is truly part of a relationship. The city's registry was meant to provide that proof.

Whether the registry has played a helpful role with that issue really isn't known. Frank Reeb, the city clerk who oversees the registry, said no employer has ever asked to view the registry. And a state law still exists that seems to prohibit insurance companies from writing small-group health insurance policies that cover domestic partners, said Bob Hanson, a spokesman for Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger.

What is known is that 37 couples signed up for the registry during its first year, with 18 of them signing up in the first month. Just based off of the names on the list, 23 are lesbian couples, six are opposite-sex couples, five are gay male couples, and it couldn't be determined by names alone what category the other three fell into.

But it does seem that the registry is fulfilling a symbolic purpose, which supporters had said was another important reason to create the registry.

Jen and Jess were among the more than one dozen couples who signed up on the first day, amid fanfare and media attention at City Hall.

"I wanted to be there to see what it would be like," Pierson said. "I didn't think it would change anything, but if we were going to sign up, I wanted to be where the action was at. Part of the reason to do it is to be public about it."

¢¢¢

But not everyone believes that is the only reason to do it.

Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, has been the most outspoken Statehouse critic of Lawrence's registry. He believes the registry is about more than symbolism. He believes it is about building a foundation for a legal challenge to the state's ban on gay marriage. He said allowing individual cities to pass laws on domestic relations is troubling.

"It allows for a very important part of the law to develop in a hodgepodge pattern across the state," Kinzer said. "It could create a lot of confusion and open the door for a lot of lawsuits.

"We don't, for example, have a different law for divorce in Hays than we do in Olathe, and there are good reasons for that."

Kinzer said supporters of domestic partnership registries should fight to get a statewide registry. Almost everyone acknowledges that would be a tough sell in the Kansas Legislature.

Kinzer said he certainly wouldn't support such a registry because he has moral objections to same-sex marriages. He believes the majority of residents of the state do, too. The constitutional ban on same-sex marriages passed overwhelmingly in 2005, with Douglas County being the only county to reject it.

"I think the voters of Kansas have clearly spoken on this issue," Kinzer said. "The Legislature should be diligent in making sure their intent is upheld."

Thus far, legislators haven't had to be too diligent. Lawrence remains the only city in the state to have a domestic partnership registry. And Reeb - the city clerk - said his office hadn't received any inquiries from other cities studying the issue.

¢¢¢

An ever-moving wind chime and an equally energetic trio of barnyard kittens mark the height of commotion on Jen and Jess' piece of rural Douglas County.

That fits their personalities, which they both described as laid-back. Maybe that's why Humphrey more often than not doesn't speak up, even when she hears views like Kinzer's that she disagrees with.

She even remembers once - the one time she said she felt uncomfortable in Lawrence - when she was sitting in a dentist chair listening to two dental assistants criticize the lifestyle of lesbian singer Melissa Etheridge. Humphrey had a mouthful of dental tools, so she couldn't say anything right away. But even when she did have the chance, she ended up leaving without commenting.

"I don't want to be that person anymore," Humphrey said. "I don't want to seem defensive. I would rather just have people change their opinions by getting to know me and Jess."

Pierson approaches it much the same way. She said she reacted to the passage of the state's ban on same-sex marriages with a sigh. She looks for her victories on a smaller scale. The one that has buoyed her lately is that her 71-year-old father no longer has difficulty introducing Jen as his daughter's partner.

Humphrey did end up changing dentists over the Etheridge incident. She thought about sending the dental office employees a letter telling them why, but she never did.

She's not sure why she didn't. Maybe it is just a mellowness that has come with age. Maybe it is a cynicism that has come with age. Maybe it simply is a function of the time and energy it would take.

Comments

Great article. Some folks are against gay marriage, because of the marriage aspect. But call it a civil union and more people would approve. Me, I don't care either way. You should love the person you want to and the government, (state, local and national) shouldn't try to dictate their "values" on everyone else.

rtwngr (Anonymous) says:I like how she took her shot at those who attend church. A little bit of reverse bigotry.Are you denying that some churches (not just Christian) make lesbians out to be evil witches? She didn't say all churches, which would have been bigotry. She said some people get their stereotypes from their church.

Great story Jen and Jess! So Sweet! Hugs from Ann. Don't worry about being mello Jen, I have enough righteous indignation for us all. As has been said before, marriage is above all a legal arrangement. You can have your religious (or civil) ceremony but the state issues you the legal documents. ( I certainly do not favor forcing any religious organization to perform a ceremony they are opposed to--that would be forcing my "religion" or lack there of on them). But I don't see how we can prevent two (not three four five or six and a chicken) adults of sound minds from entering into a legal partnership contract unless we admit we live in a bigoted theocratic (don't theocracies violate the establishment clause?) state. Don't like being called a bigot? Then stop BEING ONE!--over-turn this ridiculous "contitutional" ban.

Congratulations Jess and Jen! Here's to many more years together on your farm. It's a great article, but it's a shame that too many people still see something wrong about an obviously loving, committed relationship between two people. I would love to see a follow-up article about the legal challenges faced by domestic partnerships in Kansas. Wills, rights of survivorship, health care decisions, and so many more obstacles that are taken for granted in marriages have to be dealt with by legal contracts. What rights do married heterosexuals have that a domestic partnership can - or in some situations can't - obtain through a lengthy, expensive legal process? What are the costs involved for establishing a domestic partnership equivalent to marriage?

This is a very well-written article. Kudos to the Journal-World for its enlightening pieces. Kudos to Lawrence for passing the Registry, to Douglas County for rejecting the constitutional ban, and to Jess and Jen for living their lives the way they want to.I am a heterosexual male who voted for George W. Bush, but I believe in equal rights, libertarianism and the government not telling people how to live their lives. Kansans need to reject the gay marriage ban (I actually campaigned against it in Sedgwick County) and treat all people with respect, irrespective of their lifestyle choices.

Thank you for a nice, well written article. In my local paper, I want to read about local people and issues. This is exactly the sort of article I want to read in the LJWorld.110 tomato plants? That is pretty ambitious.

Did anyone else notice a state law which seems to prohibit insurance companies from writing policies that cover domestic partners?Why?If insurance companies want to write policies like that, why on earth is the state of Kansas stopping them?

The domestic registry is a slap in the face. "Hey, we're not going to treat you like equals, hopefully this will shut you up".How is this any different than mixed-race relationships earlier in the last century? I do not understand how people can think prohibiting homosexuals from celebrating their love is tons more immoral than a black woman and a white man celebrating their love. Love is love. It's not immoral. Grow up.Can I just hibernate until homosexuals are finally treated like equal human beings?

"Ooh i need your love babe,Guess you know it's true.Hope you need my love babe,Just like i need you.Hold me, love me, hold me, love me.Ain't got nothin' but love babe,Eight days a week."Relationships can be a great thing! Good luck and hope you guys get to grow old together!

We seriously need to stop using these words when refering to sexual orientation - "lifestyle" and "choice". When did YOU choose to be heterosexual, and is it a "lifestyle" or is it simply YOU existing as you are naturally created?Why is this issue being legally controlled by a THEOCRACY?!?! I've just spent the last few minutes hearing 5 hetero-men on TV (Obama, McCain, Wolf Blitzer, et. al.) discuss my HUMAN RIGHT to marry the person I love. The Spiritual Arrogance alone is beyond insulting & degrading...but that is the sick part of this social dominance. Do Americans really think that the Exhalted Hetero-Sexual Marriage's TWO SOULS are somehow MORE human and deserving of the legal rights & protections than the TWO SOULS found in a Homo-Loving Marriage? (if you caught that hyphenated distinction, ain't it insulting?) Our souls are equal. Our children's souls are equal. More and more of us will not pay into a federal system that excludes us, because it is immoral to deny our families and children civil marriage (gay tax protest).

I don't know why Christians are so opposed to homosexuality but greed and gluttony get a free pass. Jerry Falwell didn't seem to cause much concern in spite of hitting the buffet line a few too many times. Same for Pat Robertson who managed to create a personal fortune around $100 million dollars while operating a non-profit entity. Seems to me they should be in favor of domestic partnership laws because it promotes family values.

ALL these idiots in lawrence dont know the bible at all it says homos are a abombnation to god its not any of are rights to judge or say if we agree or not and homos are not born that way it is cause they are messed up in there heads and dont want to see what god said in his word it is supposed to be adam and eve not adam and steve you all need help and i am not being judging i am just standing up for what i believe and i am not saying dont be messed up if you want but i dont agree you messed up people should a have rights b get married and c have kids it messes with kids minds and also i dont agree you should have it all over the tv and web sites you guys want rights fine but we chistens should be able to turn the tv on with are husbends or wifes and kids and not see two girls at it or two guiys kissing all gays should move to gayifornia and have a big gate around and then run your own lives and leave us out but rember god will judge you all on judgement day